American pundits show signs of irony deficiency

No realpolitik please, we’re Americans

Many American geopolitical pundits are behaving just like their economic counterparts. If the latter believed that a long period of growth and low inflation meant the demise of the business cycle, the former convinced themselves that the long period of relative peace between the world’s great powers indicated the “end of history”. Then facts intervened.

In today’s Washington Post, Ronald D. Asmus and Richard Holbrooke argue that “this moment could well mark the end of an era in Europe during which realpolitik and spheres of influence were supposed to be replaced by new cooperative norms and a country’s right to choose its own path.” Perhaps it was the supposition that was wrong. They go on to argue that the US needs “to counter Russian pressure on its neighbors, especially Ukraine—most likely the next target in Moscow’s efforts to create a new sphere of hegemony.” They pull off a remarkable feat—they condemn realpolitik and advocate it. Of course, they only condemn realpolitik when it is practised by the Russians.

And in another essay in the same newspaper, Robert Kagan (John McCain’s foreign policy advisor) writes that “Russia’s attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even — though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities — the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives.” It is, of course, understandable that Mr Kagan should use the phrase “return of history” as that’s the title of his recent book. But it is amusing to note that “the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives” in the 21st century should be shocking.

The irony deficiency is bipartisan. The New York Timesreports: “Michael McFaul, a Russia expert at Stanford who is advising Barack Obama, also views Russia as a premodern, sphere-of-influence power. He attributes Russia’s hostility to further NATO expansion less to geostrategic calculations than to what he says is Mr. Putin’s cold war mentality. The essential Russian calculus, he says, is, “Anything we can do to weaken the U.S. is good for Russia.”” So what is NATO expansion but the Russian calculus in reverse?

But it is Dick Cheney who takes the cake. “Russian aggression must not go unanswered,” he told Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s president, who had launched the war, “and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the US.” Surely, Mr Cheney can’t be thinking that the consequences of answering it will be any less serious?

Update: It’s spreading! The FT catches it now.

Russia’s behaviour in the southern Caucasus is a reversion to spheres of influence and balance of power politics. If Moscow really believes the west is behaving the same way, that is the sort of difference a new strategic partnership with the EU would resolve. This way, it will never get one. In fact, Russia will never get to where it wants to be in the 21st century by behaving like a 19th-century power. [FT]

If this confrontation escalates any further, we could soon be slouching towards a new cold war

Charles Krauthammer, an informed American journalist, just conceded that Russia will likely depose Georgia’s President and absorb South Ossettia and Abkhazia. In response, he thinks Russia will be kicked out of the G8 (as McCain has been demanding), its WTO accession will be blocked, and the Sochi olympics in 2014 will be boycotted. This is getting real serious

I fear important nations will be called on to take sides once again — not clear where India would land in that circumstance, but if this scenario were to develop prior to the NSG vote, it’s hard to imagine a consensus there

This is a god send for Kagan and his boss McCain. Americans who were old enough to read and understand news in the 80s have always been deeply cynical of the Russians. McCain’s rhetoric of morality and retaliation cannot be backed up by action but is reassuring to voters who remember those times.

Primary red,
Do you happen to have a link to Krauthammer’s article?
Zbigniew Brzezhinski also has been firing off on how Putin’s moves resemble those of Stalin’s invasion of Finland. No American commentator seems to remember that this is almost exactly analogous to the NATO bombing campaign of Serbia in the 1990s. Russia today is claiming the same basis for its campaign to oust a democratically elected leader as the US and the Europeans claimed then to oust Milosevic.

Nitin, you are right. Kagan’s particular comment that the details do not matter was telling. How many people remember the actual details of the Sudeten crisis, he asks. If that is the yardstick to measure military actions, then the US is more guilty than any other country in the world. For example, how many people will remember the WMD scare prior to the Saddam invasion? And this is the very same administration that actively connived in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon which was done ostensibly to bring peace. Now that Russia is claiming the very same thing, surprisingly no one seems to remember these transgressions of international law. The virus of American exceptionalism had earlier infected only a limited band of neo-conservatives with close ties to conservative think tanks and the White House; now, it seems to have spread to the wider foreign policy establishment. Clearly, this is a huge case of Western chutzpah.

Gorbachev made a good case for the Russian military action in his Washington Post op-ed today. Unless the US and Europe find a way to accomodate Russian interests in the caucasus which seems quite unlikely at the moment, tensions are not going to resolve.

These strategic affairs “experts” do not do justice to their readers or their trade. I am amused McFaul doesn’t see the irony in quoting George Kennan, who is reported to have said, “Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals.”, while forgetting this priceless gem from the same Kennan, We [the US] have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.

Thanks for pointing out the Gorbachev article. He’s bang on the money on this.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against “small, defenseless Georgia” is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity…

By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its “national interest,” the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone’s interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region. [WP]

Cupid,
Addressing some of the arguments you have made
“No American commentator seems to remember that this is almost exactly analogous to the NATO bombing campaign of Serbia in the 1990s. Russia today is claiming the same basis for its campaign to oust a democratically elected leader as the US and the Europeans claimed then to oust Milosevic.”

It is not even close – the Serbs were engaging in open ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia. In fact Clinton got the US involved only after it was impossible to ignore the situation. Whether Milosevic was democratically elected or not, does not matter. The Serbs were still on a killing spree.

Georgia is not ethnically cleansing any one – the biggest mistake the Georgian president did was to walk into a trap that Putin had laid for him – Georgia is a small country and should have calculated the Russian response before walking into a war. The pro-Russian forces in Osseta have been trying to drag Georgia into a larger war for a long time now – the Georgians fell for the bait, this time.

“Kagan’s particular comment that the details do not matter was telling. How many people remember the actual details of the Sudeten crisis, he asks. If that is the yardstick to measure military actions, then the US is more guilty than any other country in the world. For example, how many people will remember the WMD scare prior to the Saddam invasion?”
You are missing Kagan’s point – he says that the Sudetan crisis had very little to do with Sudetan itself and was more about Hitler proclaiming what he thought belonged to Germany’s spehere of influence. Just as Russia is unwilling to see Georgia as little more than one of its former states.

I live in Chicago right now – believe me people remember the reasons to go to Iraq war all too well – there is a Presidential candidate from Chicago who beat the Clinton machine mostly because of his supposedly great judgement over this war. People are disgusted when they remember the whole WMD thing, but they still do – all too well.

“And this is the very same administration that actively connived in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon which was done ostensibly to bring peace. Now that Russia is claiming the very same thing, surprisingly no one seems to remember these transgressions of international law.”

Nope, the Israelis had enough with Hizbollah staging a proxy war with them thru Lebanon. Besides two of their soldiers were kidnapped – Isreal has an offcial policy of standing behind its soldiers when they are in harm’s way – in a country where military service is mandatory for people of a certain age, the Govt tries to reward the duty of its citizens by promising to get them back to their families dead or alive in case any thing happens to them.

India might be the only country in the world which has the patience or the nonchalance to be consistently attacked by terrorists – Israel and Georgia seem to lack this.

Russia’s claims to peace would be believable if they were not attacking cities like Gori and Tbilisi which are indisputably Gerogian territory – this goes beyond South Osseta.

“The virus of American exceptionalism had earlier infected only a limited band of neo-conservatives with close ties to conservative think tanks and the White House; now, it seems to have spread to the wider foreign policy establishment. Clearly, this is a huge case of Western chutzpah.”
That seems to be too far fetched, dont you think ? One incident is not going to change US policy makers who are opposed to neo-conservative thought. Every one is struck by how brazen the Russian offensive has been and how it has gone well beyond the excuse to annex Osseta.

Not only that, the US and the EU have been concerned about how the Russian govt under Putin has been using its energy resources to blackmail countries in Western Europe. Now they have gone one step further.

This is a cause for extreme concern in the US and Europe – not chutzpah exactly. The US is not going to accomodate Russian interests here – just like Russia is not going to accomodate US interests.

I just have one question – what sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia ? absolutely nothing – this has almost nothing to do with Georgia – Russia wants to flex its muscles and show that it can still be hugely relevant.

I just have one question – what sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia? absolutely nothing – this has almost nothing to do with Georgia – Russia wants to flex its muscles and show that it can still be hugely relevant.

Georgia is a pawn, a proxy and a cat’s paw. The cat is the United States. Russia is sending a message to the cat.

It is Ossetia, not Osseta (probably not a typo, as you did it twice and your ‘Putin’ seems to have the ‘i’).

Now, since you have “just one question”, let me attempt that one.

Q. “What sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia?”

A. Three such threat perceptions come to mind instantly:

(i) Of becoming a Client State of another country (or alliance), which has certain plans for the region that go contrary to Russia’s perceived national interests.

(ii) Of suppressing legitimate (as legitimate as in Kosovo) political aspirations of a people who are friendly to Russia, and thus creating an unstable security climate in the region (kind of like Pak did in BD, and SL did with the Tamils).

(iii) Of targeting Russian citizens living in South Ossetia.

This can be dissected in many more ways, and there is no lack of excuses for Russia to intervene militarily. Moralizing is not going to help.

I believe this alternative hypothesis has better evidence and makes better sense than your Cold War persuasion (“Russia wants to flex its muscles”).

I think Georgian PM must be tried for crime against humanity. 1500 + civilians were murdered by Georgian forces. Now I cann’t believe the ceasefire logic – Georgia bombs SO’s primary city to ruins and then asks for a ceasefire when Russians respond. Russia has to attack Georgia proper – to increase the cost of future mis-adventures! of Georgia & Russians have a moral responsibility to respond as well …for this involves Russian citizens.

By initiating the conflict, Georgia must take responsibility for the consequences. I dont think Russia will over-throw Georgia’s PM – once this is done, there would be no need to :)) meaning Georgian PM would be a spend-force..no more the charming west democrat that he is made to be.

If China attacks Taiwan and destroys it — Will Nato, EU & co call on the US for ceasefire and ask US to confine itself to the “zone of conflict” i.e. just Taiwan?

Leaving aside what the armchair warriors are saying, the reality is the U.S. and other Western nations are not going to do anything. Even if the U.S. did not invade Iraq, there is not much the West can do to check Russia in this matter. Western Europe cannot kick Russia out of the G-8, they are too dependent on Russian natural gas and oil. American cannot do anything, because they need Russian cooperation in dealing with Iran.

Keep in mind, America and the West has stood back before in such circumstances. Ask the Hungarians and the Czechs.

“Georgia is a pawn, a proxy and a cat’s paw. The cat is the United States. Russia is sending a message to the cat.”

If Georgia is a pawn/proxy for the US, what exactly is it accomplishing for America ? I fail to understand that. Georgia most definitely does not want to be Russia’s pawn and wants to be a nation state – not some extension of Russia. More importantly, it has oil pipelines that are outside Russia’s influence – so that it cannot be held to black mail by thugs like Putin. The kind of black mail that Russia has been treating Ukraine, Western Europe for some time now.

Georgia’s biggest mistake at this point is rushing into a war against an adversary which is much more powerful – and its supposed master US, was not any where to be seen to help them out, other than calling for toothless UN resolutions and good for nothing platitudes.

BOK,
A. Three such threat perceptions come to mind instantly:

(i) Of becoming a Client State of another country (or alliance), which has certain plans for the region that go contrary to Russia’s perceived national interests.

I’d really like to know these mysterious plans that the master has for the client state in the region. I’d also like to what exactly Russia’s national interests are and how Georgia hurts these interests. My question was not meant elicit the response a Russian Govt official would give. I thought i would get something informational, but all i got was boilerplate.

(ii) Of suppressing legitimate (as legitimate as in Kosovo) political aspirations of a people who are friendly to Russia, and thus creating an unstable security climate in the region (kind of like Pak did in BD, and SL did with the Tamils).

Wonder how Russians live in a region that is disputed by Georgia – wonder if any one here even knows that Georgia was annexed by Russia in 1923 by an invading Red Army.

The only unstable security climate that was created here was by those “peacekeepers” who were targeting Georgia as a proxy for “their friendly neighborhood Russian Government”.

(iii) Of targeting Russian citizens living in South Ossetia.

Is that why the Russians bombarded Gori, airbases near the capital city of Tbilisi ? If all they wanted to do was to drive the Georgian’s out of disputed territory, why attack areas that are indisputably Georgian ?

Interestingly, there are protests in the Baltic states – http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3555990,00.html – people in Lativa, Estonia are making peaceful anti Russian protests.
Ukraine has refused to allow Russian ships to enter the Crimean base as it wants to be no part of the Russian offensive against Gerogia. The Ukranians can sense that if Georgia buckles today, it might very well be them tomorrow. The Presidents of these Baltic states have also openly come out in support of Georgia.

Interesting both Ukraine and Georgia had pro democracy movements in the last 5 years which installed anti Russian and pro Western governments. And THAT is the biggest problem for Russia – they cant think of these two states not being Russian vassals.

Any peace agreement moving forward is going to require UN peacekeepers to keep the peace in the region – so that it is not used as a base to attack Georgia again. This war did not happen out of the blue – while Georgia was pretty stupid to cross swords with the Russians, they had reasons to be aggrieved.

“I believe this alternative hypothesis has better evidence and makes better sense than your Cold War persuasion (”Russia wants to flex its muscles”).”
If Russia was not flexing its muscles by taking this confrontation beyond the area of dispute and bombing Gori and air bases near Tbilisi, i’d like to know how else any reasonable person can view it ? Target practice for their new airforce cadets ?

i have to say i am surprised that not many people question Russia’s version of the conflict and seem to believe it rather whole heartedly.

In reality, Russian version of the conflict is not getting much footage outside of Russia. Nobody in the non-Russia media trusts the Russian version of events. So, the whole-hearted belief, if any, is most likely on the other side.

My only “belief” is that the recent events are part of the ongoing struggle between Russia and the generic “West” for influence in the region. I consider them both “legitimate” from a realpolitik point of view. The problem, IMO, is that a lot of commentary seems to reject and denounce the Russian realpolitik concerns (‘they are flexing muscles’) while at the same time accepting the exact same concerns of the “West” (‘Mikheil is a democratic leader’).

I’d really like to know these mysterious plans that the master has for the client state in the region. I’d also like to what exactly Russia’s national interests are and how Georgia hurts these interests. My question was not meant elicit the response a Russian Govt official would give. I thought i would get something informational, but all i got was boilerplate.

There is no mystery here. Russia considers its “near abroad” as its sphere of influence, and it has energy, trade and immigration issues with all such neighbours. NATO and US, for their own reasons (as “valid” as Russian reasons, from my point of view) want to puncture this sphere of influence. In more blunt terms, Russia wants Georgia to be its client state while NATO/US want Georgia to be their client state. Hence, the conflict (it escalated right now because of rather naive assumptions by Saakashvili).

I thought this was common knowledge, which is why I wrote what you seem to think is ‘boilerplate’. In my response, I’d pointed out quite clearly that the legitimacy of South Ossetian democratic aspirations is only as legitimate as those in Kosovo. I also stated that there is no lack of “excuses” for Russia to intervene militarily. If the meaning is not clear, I can’t help you with that.

You asked a question about Russian interests, and I gave you my opinion. If you had asked about Western interests, I could have given those reasons as well.

In future, I would appreciate if you did not indulge in ad hominem attacks by calling me (or anyone else) a Russian govt. official (or some such thing). I could easily call you an American bootlicker, and we can all roll downhill from there. If you don’t want answers, please don’t raise questions (or indicate that you are merely indulging in rhetorics and posturing).

BOK,
I will first start off by saying that i was not trying to indulge in a personal attack on you – i said that your reply seems like it came out of the Russian Govt officials – NOT that you are actively siding with them. Hopefully, you can understand that.

And yes, you may call me an American bootlicker or what ever else if you want- believe me, i have been called worse things 🙂 My whole point of this post was to challenge your opinions/perspective on this issue – nothing more, nothing less.

I will now try to respond to some of your comments
“The problem, IMO, is that a lot of commentary seems to reject and denounce the Russian realpolitik concerns (’they are flexing muscles’) while at the same time accepting the exact same concerns of the “West” (’Mikheil is a democratic leader’).”

I will agree that Russia has a certain bias built against it- not as bad as the US, but Western opinion is usually slanted against it. But in this incident, not a single European leader has openly condemned Russia’s actions – in fact they have basically agreed that the Georgian Prez was pretty rash in doing what he did. I agree with them too – he was basically stupid for doing what he did, no matter what the provocation was – if he was counting on US military support, he is an even bigger idiot.

But this is what conservatives in US are asking – why exactly does Russia want to treat Georgia as a client state, when Georgia itself is against it.? As far as the whole “client state” thing goes, these states can choose to be at the service of whomsoever they want to be – whether it is approved by competing interests or not.Pakistan was once the US client state – it wouldnt mind being China’s if it wants to – whether the US likes it or not.

And no one here is falling for the bullshit over South Ossetia – what are the Georgians supposed to do ? just keep getting hit by those who are being prodded by Russia? Their response was clearly rash, but they have now openly asked their supposed supporters – how far do you want Russia to go ahead ? where’s the proverbial line in the sand ?

“There is no mystery here. Russia considers its “near abroad” as its sphere of influence, and it has energy, trade and immigration issues with all such neighbours. NATO and US, for their own reasons (as “valid” as Russian reasons, from my point of view) want to puncture this sphere of influence. In more blunt terms, Russia wants Georgia to be its client state while NATO/US want Georgia to be their client state. Hence, the conflict (it escalated right now because of rather naive assumptions by Saakashvili).”

Well Russia may want a lot more – but you dont co-erce nations into being client states – atleast not when you are no longer the super power you once were. How ever rash Saakashvili was, Putin clearly over reached by bombing Tbilisi and Gori – it now has the leaders of Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland come out openly in support for Georgia – as you point out Russia might consider them the “near abroad” or what ever you want to call it, but it looks like these countries might want to say some thing about it.

In fact neither Georgia nor Ukraine are members of NATO yet – simply because no major European country wants to anger Russia (because of its energy blackmail) – they are ready to concede that these former states should continue to be under Russian sphere of influence. It is only the US which has been pushing for their membership – and even the US could nt do much more than protest indignantly.

If Georgia were truly a client state for the US, there would be less talk from the US and more action. This need not be necessarily military. All that the US could do was to ship 2000 Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia – now is’nt that swell ?

I thought this was common knowledge, which is why I wrote what you seem to think is ‘boilerplate’. In my response, I’d pointed out quite clearly that the legitimacy of South Ossetian democratic aspirations is only as legitimate as those in Kosovo. I also stated that there is no lack of “excuses” for Russia to intervene militarily. If the meaning is not clear, I can’t help you with that.

If Russia was truly interested in the democratic aspirations of its people, i wonder why it dealt with Chechenya the way it did. Who is going to intervene for the Chechens the way noble Russians “intervened” for their friends in Ossetia ? Does Chechenya have legitimate aspirations in your view ?

You may think it is “common knowledge” that NATO/US want Georgia to be a vassal for them, when the facts on the ground plainly speak otherwise. NATO wants nothing to do with these nations – not at the cost of inviting Russian wrath. They have been sitting on the issue of admitting Georgia, precisely because they are uncomfortable with this issue. In fact French President Sarkozy has gone on a begging mission to Russia to stop the hostilities. And Russia is now basically going to get South Ossetia – there is going to be no peace keepers or any thing like that.

If any thing, these events only drive countries like Georgia, Ukraine closer to the US than before. Intimidating legitimate nation states into becoming client vassals does not work that easily any more, no matter how much geo politics Russia likes to play.

After these hostilities, Russia may end up with more territory – but it also ends up with even more resistance from the nation states it supposedly wants to pull into its zone of influence. Not to mention an open declaration of hostility with the US. If this is how “geopolitics” is played, it is not too good.

The Russians look more like street thugs than a great power. May be there was some thing good that came out of this invasion.

Why should America oppose it if Russia wants a mil base for its N-bombers and missiles in a soverign country like Cuba with mutual consent?

The answer should suggest why Russia doesn’t want outside powers making client states of countries in its sphere of influence. How much pain one such client state – Pakistan – has inflicted upon much larger India at the behest of its sponsors – mainly the west and PRC is another data point worthy of examination, IMO.

Say, Country A lies in such a position that countries B and C are competing to turn country A into their own client state (or, to “exert influence” on it). The wishes of Country A are going to be of least concern to countries B and C. They’d care only about their own interests and pursue their policies anyway.

I am not sure if Sud was responding to your comment, but the situation he described should answer many of your concerns.

You seem to be interested in classifying countries’ actions as “right” and “wrong” and figuring out who is a “thug”. Since those are not my interests, I think I’ll stop here.

Isn’t nice to see everyone is a realist! Here is guy trying to get his land back and he should be tried for war crimes! And comparing him to Milosevic – an ethnic cleanser who killed scores of Muslims and non-Serbs. Very nice. Pawn or no pawn, it’s up to Georgia and Georgians to decide what they want to do – it can ally with Mars if it wants. Irrespective of what west does or doesn’t, it’s amazing to see most siding with Russia trash another country. If the Chinese come to rescue their rebels in northeast by cutting off the chicken neck of weaker nation, it’s apparently obvious who the support would go to…too bad, there is too much moralism. Nice to see Gorbachev trying to redeem himself in front of his fellow Russians.

Anyway, here is Saakashvili’s side of the story – of repeated traps of Putin and final one when he was ready to roll. How dare Saakashvili tries to keep his country together and want to be part of Europe.

“Say, Country A lies in such a position that countries B and C are competing to turn country A into their own client state (or, to “exert influence” on it). The wishes of Country A are going to be of least concern to countries B and C. They’d care only about their own interests and pursue their policies anyway.”

Sorry BOK, but these analogies make no sense – Georgia has no interest being a client state of Russia – and it is no client state of the US. It may be of the least concern for Russia what Georgia thinks, but that does not mean that Georgia needs to roll over and play dead when pro Russian forces in Ossetia keep launching attacks at it. This has been going on for a long time – this is not a war that Georgians suddenly woke up to,one fine day. I am surprised by the callousness with which you equate Russian and US interests on Georgia in the same way. I am not denying that these two countries have no interests but to equate them is just plain silly.

With your line of reasoning both India and Pakistan would have the same kind of interest in Afghanistan, when it clearly is nt.

“I am not sure if Sud was responding to your comment, but the situation he described should answer many of your concerns.”

I wish people put more thought into historical analogies like the Cuban Missile crisis – . Georgia is not exactly being armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons by the US – America has no interest in opening a new front against the Russians when they already have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any one who thinks otherwise has no idea of the terrible costs that the US is enduring in its two war fronts already.

“You seem to be interested in classifying countries’ actions as “right” and “wrong” and figuring out who is a “thug”. Since those are not my interests, I think I’ll stop here.”

And you seem to have no understanding of what i am trying to say. When Russia acts like a thug, what else do you think is it going to be called ? Peace keeper ? In the last 3 days, it has managed to make all major powers in Europe to start thinking ” How propotionate was the Russian response ” – why are they attacking what is indisputable Georgian territory?

What exactly did Russia achieve here ? how were its interests exactly served ? If any thing it has only succeeded in uniting both Presidential candidates in the US to condemn its actions. And thats no small feat considering how McCain and Obama have been sniping at each other when it comes to foreign policy.

No European nation today supports Russias escalation in this conflict even if they agree that Georgia should not have started a war. And the Baltic states have come together in supporting Georgia as well.

Remind me again what Russia has achieved here leaving aside such silly things like “right” and “wrong”.?

@Chandra,
The Russian Foreign minister came on Charlie Rose and said that Russia was trying to stop genocide in South Ossetia with a straight face. When Rose asked him, why exactly Gori and airports near the capital city were being attacked, he flat out refuted that these attacks even happened !

“. Pawn or no pawn, it’s up to Georgia and Georgians to decide what they want to do – it can ally with Mars if it wants. Irrespective of what west does or doesn’t, it’s amazing to see most siding with Russia trash another country. If the Chinese come to rescue their rebels in northeast by cutting off the chicken neck of weaker nation, it’s apparently obvious who the support would go to…too bad, there is too much moralism. Nice to see Gorbachev trying to redeem himself in front of his fellow Russians.”
Could nt have said it better myself.

1. When did I ever call upon Georgia to roll over and play dead? I attempted to answer your query about Russian interests in Georgia (a point which I’ve already clarified). You seem to have taken that answer as my support, “whole-hearted” or otherwise, for Russian policies. Let me assure you that it is nothing of the sort.

2. My analogy merely states that wishes of Country A are of no concern to countries B and C in pursuance of their respective perceived interests in Country A. It says nothing whatsoever about their interests being equal or otherwise. I did not make that judgment in any of my comments.

Hope that clears it up.

Also, I have absolutely no objection to you calling any country by any name (well, unless it is India). You can call Russia as many names as you want. I didn’t call Russian forces peace-keepers or angels anyway.

Moving on.

I am, however, interested in seeing what Russia and Georgia have achieved with this little war. It could make NATO reluctant to admit Georgia and Ukraine, and it could easily do the opposite. That would depend on NATO’s estimate of Russian resolve to keep these countries within its ambit.

A lot of people seem to be saying that this war has indicated Russia’s resolve to take things really far, and hence NATO/EU would hesitate before expanding in future. I am not so sure about that. I think that Russia did indeed want to send such a message, but I am not sure that it is definitely going to be read that way. It is quite clear that Russia was never going to pay a heavy price for this war, and that *may* have encouraged them to escalate the conflict. If NATO takes that view, then it might actually accelerate Ukraine’s admission and thus raise the stakes for another such Russian adventure. It is these calculations that would determine what Russia has or has not gained from this war.

OTOH, Georgia, seems to be the complete loser here. Lots of people dead. Militarily trounced. Blitzkrieg did not work. No real international support. And now, Russian troops are not going to leave in a hurry, thus making admission to NATO/EU a distant dream. Moreover, there is now a distinct possibility that Russia would increase its efforts to get recognition for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. While far from certain, such a result would be a huge blow to Georgia. No doubt, the new countries would waste no time in joining the Russian Federation (it is a federation, hence open to other countries actually joining in, rather than just being friendly).

Yes…it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the case of Ukraine. My own take is that Russia’s disproportionate response would cause NATO to step back. If the Russians had reacted with restraint, then I’d say NATO might have been emboldened. So the Russian strategy might have been deliberately designed to signal this.

In any case, I would say that NATO upping the ante by accelerating Ukraine’s admission would be pitch it into a too costly confrontation. The EU countries don’t have the stomach for it…even if parts of the US establishment were game.

BOK,
I dont think I ever denied that Russia has interests in Georgia – i dont think any one does. From my perspective, this whole thread was about how the US does not see the irony of condemning Russia for acting in its interests while it tries to do the same. I think most commentators realize this – but they cannot deal with the brute force strategy of the Russians.

My take on this issue is this – the reaction in the US was strong because there was a point where Russia escalated beyond merely protecting what it saw was its interests – this escalation is kind of what took people by surprise and alarm – further more, moving troops, tanks, heavy artillery so rapidly is impossible unless of course these operations were planned well in advance. The Russians were most definitely ready for this. Russia has not been this aggressive in Europe (Afghanistan is another story) since the 60’s ( was it Hungary ??) – and this almost always invokes bad memories/anxious thoughts for the West.

Now the Russians might have escalated the conflict to give a warning sign to the US about its ties with Georgia, Ukraine etc – but it seems to have backfired temporarily. The deal may be in cold storage for now, but we have not heard the last of it – i dont see how the US would totally drop this issue – it would a loss of face. But its possible that when Obama becomes President ( McCain has almost no chance) he may actually listen to France and Germany and drop support for Georgia’s inclusion into NATO.

I would be very thankful if Nitin can post Chanakya’s views about the propotionate use of force by a country against a lesser enemy – especially when the lesser enemy has an ally like the US. May be this is already out there, so even if you can point to the link, i would appreciate it.

Chandra’s seems to be about the only genuine, compassionate, humane, morally consistent and thoughtful post in this mess. His pouring vitriol on the naked hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the ‘armchair realists’ promises to ring in their ears for yrs to come. If it hasn’t shamed the rest of us yet, it should and I trust with time, patience and calm, it will.

Cough. cough.

His challenging these born-again realists to not support India if and when PRC intervenes militarily in support of yuan-financed insurgencies in India’s NE is a stinging slap to misplaced nationalism based on moral principle. What possible cogent reply can these part-time ad-hoc realists have now, eh? Wah, wah. Etc.

Going by his impeccable logic, how can India oppose if Bangladesh decides to enter into a comprehensive NATO style security pact with PRC and allows basing rights for warships, submarines, N-missiles and missile shields in BD? Isn’t BD a soverign country after all that does not wish to be India’s client state despite being in India’s neighbourhood and sharing some 3000+ km border with yindia?? Last I recall, Delhi quietly threatened a naval blocakde if submarine basing rights were to be given to PRC in the Bay of Bengal and both Beijing and Dhaka backed down for now, no doubt waiting out for a suitable time later.

What if Nepal decides to give missile basing rights to PRC or Papistan? Isn;t Nepal a soverign nation that doesn’t wish to be a client state of yindia? Am sure uncle Sam will respect Mexcian or Guatamalan soveriegnity and desire to not become some client state should PRC wish to base N-weapons there….

Shaabash, chandra saab. Pls continue to enlighten these small dark minds with your moral clarity, courage, consistency, rectitude, probity, intellect, humanity and insert any other radioactively glowing adjectives you can think of. Who needs realists, realism and realpolitik anyway? What has strategic thinking based on realpolitik given yindia in all its illustrious history spanning centuries now?

/If its too much to ask that you dispense more pearls of enlightenment before underappreciative peasentry, I understand. Thank you for your laudable and valiant efforts thus far.

This is the reincarnated website of a tiny little expat magazine, earlier published from Moscow, recently banned by Russia. That was rather weird, because the magazine was generally seen by its readers as having a pro-Russia bias (however slight)!

AFAIK, though often heavy on dark humour (which the reader would have to filter out, and Kremlin couldn’t), it is quite unbiased in its reporting. The “War Nerd” columns are especially enlightening. Check out their coverage of this conflict.

I am sure all you realists would argue to build a new Indian empire by running down bangla, nepal and all our neigbours to put a stop to PRC and whoever want to place missiles, basing rights, or what ever to surround India. So much for the Russian and desi realists.

Apparently I am too clear eyed to see the realism in Russian (and of course, your) thinking…

Search across INI

Nitin, I think you are reading this wrong. Messrs Asmus and Holbrook are referring to Europeans inclination towards post-realpolitik gibberish. If anything, Holbrook, at least, is anything but.

The underline point is what does Georgia want – neo-Warsaw or NATO – and how feasible is it. I am sure Arthashastra has something to say about it.

primary red

If this confrontation escalates any further, we could soon be slouching towards a new cold war

Charles Krauthammer, an informed American journalist, just conceded that Russia will likely depose Georgia’s President and absorb South Ossettia and Abkhazia. In response, he thinks Russia will be kicked out of the G8 (as McCain has been demanding), its WTO accession will be blocked, and the Sochi olympics in 2014 will be boycotted. This is getting real serious

I fear important nations will be called on to take sides once again — not clear where India would land in that circumstance, but if this scenario were to develop prior to the NSG vote, it’s hard to imagine a consensus there

Tricky days ahead

Manu

This is a god send for Kagan and his boss McCain. Americans who were old enough to read and understand news in the 80s have always been deeply cynical of the Russians. McCain’s rhetoric of morality and retaliation cannot be backed up by action but is reassuring to voters who remember those times.

Obama is too conciliatory for times of such insecurity.

Cupid

Primary red,
Do you happen to have a link to Krauthammer’s article?
Zbigniew Brzezhinski also has been firing off on how Putin’s moves resemble those of Stalin’s invasion of Finland. No American commentator seems to remember that this is almost exactly analogous to the NATO bombing campaign of Serbia in the 1990s. Russia today is claiming the same basis for its campaign to oust a democratically elected leader as the US and the Europeans claimed then to oust Milosevic.

Nitin, you are right. Kagan’s particular comment that the details do not matter was telling. How many people remember the actual details of the Sudeten crisis, he asks. If that is the yardstick to measure military actions, then the US is more guilty than any other country in the world. For example, how many people will remember the WMD scare prior to the Saddam invasion? And this is the very same administration that actively connived in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon which was done ostensibly to bring peace. Now that Russia is claiming the very same thing, surprisingly no one seems to remember these transgressions of international law. The virus of American exceptionalism had earlier infected only a limited band of neo-conservatives with close ties to conservative think tanks and the White House; now, it seems to have spread to the wider foreign policy establishment. Clearly, this is a huge case of Western chutzpah.

Gorbachev made a good case for the Russian military action in his Washington Post op-ed today. Unless the US and Europe find a way to accomodate Russian interests in the caucasus which seems quite unlikely at the moment, tensions are not going to resolve.

Cupid

Correction. I meant Iraq invasion, not Saddam invasion.

kaangeya

These strategic affairs “experts” do not do justice to their readers or their trade. I am amused McFaul doesn’t see the irony in quoting George Kennan, who is reported to have said, “Russia can have at its borders only enemies or vassals.”, while forgetting this priceless gem from the same Kennan, We [the US] have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth but only 6.3 percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.

Nitin

Cupid,

Thanks for pointing out the Gorbachev article. He’s bang on the money on this.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against “small, defenseless Georgia” is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity…

By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its “national interest,” the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone’s interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region. [WP]

photonman

‘Of course, they only condemn realpolitik when it is practised by the Russians.’

Is it not possible that such a condemnation is itself an exercise in realpolitik, much like propaganda?

‘premodern, sphere-of-influence power’

Why is a power that wants a sphere-of-influence “pre-modern”? Wonder what “modern” and “post-modern” powers are!

NS

Cupid,
Addressing some of the arguments you have made
“No American commentator seems to remember that this is almost exactly analogous to the NATO bombing campaign of Serbia in the 1990s. Russia today is claiming the same basis for its campaign to oust a democratically elected leader as the US and the Europeans claimed then to oust Milosevic.”

It is not even close – the Serbs were engaging in open ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia. In fact Clinton got the US involved only after it was impossible to ignore the situation. Whether Milosevic was democratically elected or not, does not matter. The Serbs were still on a killing spree.

Georgia is not ethnically cleansing any one – the biggest mistake the Georgian president did was to walk into a trap that Putin had laid for him – Georgia is a small country and should have calculated the Russian response before walking into a war. The pro-Russian forces in Osseta have been trying to drag Georgia into a larger war for a long time now – the Georgians fell for the bait, this time.

“Kagan’s particular comment that the details do not matter was telling. How many people remember the actual details of the Sudeten crisis, he asks. If that is the yardstick to measure military actions, then the US is more guilty than any other country in the world. For example, how many people will remember the WMD scare prior to the Saddam invasion?”
You are missing Kagan’s point – he says that the Sudetan crisis had very little to do with Sudetan itself and was more about Hitler proclaiming what he thought belonged to Germany’s spehere of influence. Just as Russia is unwilling to see Georgia as little more than one of its former states.

I live in Chicago right now – believe me people remember the reasons to go to Iraq war all too well – there is a Presidential candidate from Chicago who beat the Clinton machine mostly because of his supposedly great judgement over this war. People are disgusted when they remember the whole WMD thing, but they still do – all too well.

“And this is the very same administration that actively connived in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon which was done ostensibly to bring peace. Now that Russia is claiming the very same thing, surprisingly no one seems to remember these transgressions of international law.”

Nope, the Israelis had enough with Hizbollah staging a proxy war with them thru Lebanon. Besides two of their soldiers were kidnapped – Isreal has an offcial policy of standing behind its soldiers when they are in harm’s way – in a country where military service is mandatory for people of a certain age, the Govt tries to reward the duty of its citizens by promising to get them back to their families dead or alive in case any thing happens to them.

India might be the only country in the world which has the patience or the nonchalance to be consistently attacked by terrorists – Israel and Georgia seem to lack this.

Russia’s claims to peace would be believable if they were not attacking cities like Gori and Tbilisi which are indisputably Gerogian territory – this goes beyond South Osseta.

“The virus of American exceptionalism had earlier infected only a limited band of neo-conservatives with close ties to conservative think tanks and the White House; now, it seems to have spread to the wider foreign policy establishment. Clearly, this is a huge case of Western chutzpah.”
That seems to be too far fetched, dont you think ? One incident is not going to change US policy makers who are opposed to neo-conservative thought. Every one is struck by how brazen the Russian offensive has been and how it has gone well beyond the excuse to annex Osseta.

Not only that, the US and the EU have been concerned about how the Russian govt under Putin has been using its energy resources to blackmail countries in Western Europe. Now they have gone one step further.

This is a cause for extreme concern in the US and Europe – not chutzpah exactly. The US is not going to accomodate Russian interests here – just like Russia is not going to accomodate US interests.

I just have one question – what sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia ? absolutely nothing – this has almost nothing to do with Georgia – Russia wants to flex its muscles and show that it can still be hugely relevant.

Nitin

NS

I just have one question – what sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia? absolutely nothing – this has almost nothing to do with Georgia – Russia wants to flex its muscles and show that it can still be hugely relevant.

Georgia is a pawn, a proxy and a cat’s paw. The cat is the United States. Russia is sending a message to the cat.

B.O.K.

@NS:

It is Ossetia, not Osseta (probably not a typo, as you did it twice and your ‘Putin’ seems to have the ‘i’).

Now, since you have “just one question”, let me attempt that one.

Q. “What sort of a threat does a small country like Georgia pose to Russia?”

A. Three such threat perceptions come to mind instantly:

(i) Of becoming a Client State of another country (or alliance), which has certain plans for the region that go contrary to Russia’s perceived national interests.

(ii) Of suppressing legitimate (as legitimate as in Kosovo) political aspirations of a people who are friendly to Russia, and thus creating an unstable security climate in the region (kind of like Pak did in BD, and SL did with the Tamils).

(iii) Of targeting Russian citizens living in South Ossetia.

This can be dissected in many more ways, and there is no lack of excuses for Russia to intervene militarily. Moralizing is not going to help.

I believe this alternative hypothesis has better evidence and makes better sense than your Cold War persuasion (“Russia wants to flex its muscles”).

primary red

Cupid

Krauthammer made his comments last evening on Fox News in a panel discussion on the issue

I think Georgian PM must be tried for crime against humanity. 1500 + civilians were murdered by Georgian forces. Now I cann’t believe the ceasefire logic – Georgia bombs SO’s primary city to ruins and then asks for a ceasefire when Russians respond. Russia has to attack Georgia proper – to increase the cost of future mis-adventures! of Georgia & Russians have a moral responsibility to respond as well …for this involves Russian citizens.

By initiating the conflict, Georgia must take responsibility for the consequences. I dont think Russia will over-throw Georgia’s PM – once this is done, there would be no need to :)) meaning Georgian PM would be a spend-force..no more the charming west democrat that he is made to be.

If China attacks Taiwan and destroys it — Will Nato, EU & co call on the US for ceasefire and ask US to confine itself to the “zone of conflict” i.e. just Taiwan?

KXB

Leaving aside what the armchair warriors are saying, the reality is the U.S. and other Western nations are not going to do anything. Even if the U.S. did not invade Iraq, there is not much the West can do to check Russia in this matter. Western Europe cannot kick Russia out of the G-8, they are too dependent on Russian natural gas and oil. American cannot do anything, because they need Russian cooperation in dealing with Iran.

Keep in mind, America and the West has stood back before in such circumstances. Ask the Hungarians and the Czechs.

Robert Kagan is one of McCain’s many(more than hundred) foreign policy advisers.

NS

B.O.K, Nitin
I ‘d like to respond to some of your comments.

“Georgia is a pawn, a proxy and a cat’s paw. The cat is the United States. Russia is sending a message to the cat.”

If Georgia is a pawn/proxy for the US, what exactly is it accomplishing for America ? I fail to understand that. Georgia most definitely does not want to be Russia’s pawn and wants to be a nation state – not some extension of Russia. More importantly, it has oil pipelines that are outside Russia’s influence – so that it cannot be held to black mail by thugs like Putin. The kind of black mail that Russia has been treating Ukraine, Western Europe for some time now.

Georgia’s biggest mistake at this point is rushing into a war against an adversary which is much more powerful – and its supposed master US, was not any where to be seen to help them out, other than calling for toothless UN resolutions and good for nothing platitudes.

BOK,
A. Three such threat perceptions come to mind instantly:

(i) Of becoming a Client State of another country (or alliance), which has certain plans for the region that go contrary to Russia’s perceived national interests.

I’d really like to know these mysterious plans that the master has for the client state in the region. I’d also like to what exactly Russia’s national interests are and how Georgia hurts these interests. My question was not meant elicit the response a Russian Govt official would give. I thought i would get something informational, but all i got was boilerplate.

(ii) Of suppressing legitimate (as legitimate as in Kosovo) political aspirations of a people who are friendly to Russia, and thus creating an unstable security climate in the region (kind of like Pak did in BD, and SL did with the Tamils).

Wonder how Russians live in a region that is disputed by Georgia – wonder if any one here even knows that Georgia was annexed by Russia in 1923 by an invading Red Army.

The only unstable security climate that was created here was by those “peacekeepers” who were targeting Georgia as a proxy for “their friendly neighborhood Russian Government”.

(iii) Of targeting Russian citizens living in South Ossetia.

Is that why the Russians bombarded Gori, airbases near the capital city of Tbilisi ? If all they wanted to do was to drive the Georgian’s out of disputed territory, why attack areas that are indisputably Georgian ?

Interestingly, there are protests in the Baltic states – http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3555990,00.html – people in Lativa, Estonia are making peaceful anti Russian protests.
Ukraine has refused to allow Russian ships to enter the Crimean base as it wants to be no part of the Russian offensive against Gerogia. The Ukranians can sense that if Georgia buckles today, it might very well be them tomorrow. The Presidents of these Baltic states have also openly come out in support of Georgia.

Interesting both Ukraine and Georgia had pro democracy movements in the last 5 years which installed anti Russian and pro Western governments. And THAT is the biggest problem for Russia – they cant think of these two states not being Russian vassals.

Any peace agreement moving forward is going to require UN peacekeepers to keep the peace in the region – so that it is not used as a base to attack Georgia again. This war did not happen out of the blue – while Georgia was pretty stupid to cross swords with the Russians, they had reasons to be aggrieved.

“I believe this alternative hypothesis has better evidence and makes better sense than your Cold War persuasion (”Russia wants to flex its muscles”).”
If Russia was not flexing its muscles by taking this confrontation beyond the area of dispute and bombing Gori and air bases near Tbilisi, i’d like to know how else any reasonable person can view it ? Target practice for their new airforce cadets ?

i have to say i am surprised that not many people question Russia’s version of the conflict and seem to believe it rather whole heartedly.

B.O.K.

@NS:

In reality, Russian version of the conflict is not getting much footage outside of Russia. Nobody in the non-Russia media trusts the Russian version of events. So, the whole-hearted belief, if any, is most likely on the other side.

My only “belief” is that the recent events are part of the ongoing struggle between Russia and the generic “West” for influence in the region. I consider them both “legitimate” from a realpolitik point of view. The problem, IMO, is that a lot of commentary seems to reject and denounce the Russian realpolitik concerns (‘they are flexing muscles’) while at the same time accepting the exact same concerns of the “West” (‘Mikheil is a democratic leader’).

I’d really like to know these mysterious plans that the master has for the client state in the region. I’d also like to what exactly Russia’s national interests are and how Georgia hurts these interests. My question was not meant elicit the response a Russian Govt official would give. I thought i would get something informational, but all i got was boilerplate.

There is no mystery here. Russia considers its “near abroad” as its sphere of influence, and it has energy, trade and immigration issues with all such neighbours. NATO and US, for their own reasons (as “valid” as Russian reasons, from my point of view) want to puncture this sphere of influence. In more blunt terms, Russia wants Georgia to be its client state while NATO/US want Georgia to be their client state. Hence, the conflict (it escalated right now because of rather naive assumptions by Saakashvili).

I thought this was common knowledge, which is why I wrote what you seem to think is ‘boilerplate’. In my response, I’d pointed out quite clearly that the legitimacy of South Ossetian democratic aspirations is only as legitimate as those in Kosovo. I also stated that there is no lack of “excuses” for Russia to intervene militarily. If the meaning is not clear, I can’t help you with that.

You asked a question about Russian interests, and I gave you my opinion. If you had asked about Western interests, I could have given those reasons as well.

In future, I would appreciate if you did not indulge in ad hominem attacks by calling me (or anyone else) a Russian govt. official (or some such thing). I could easily call you an American bootlicker, and we can all roll downhill from there. If you don’t want answers, please don’t raise questions (or indicate that you are merely indulging in rhetorics and posturing).

NS

BOK,
I will first start off by saying that i was not trying to indulge in a personal attack on you – i said that your reply seems like it came out of the Russian Govt officials – NOT that you are actively siding with them. Hopefully, you can understand that.

And yes, you may call me an American bootlicker or what ever else if you want- believe me, i have been called worse things 🙂 My whole point of this post was to challenge your opinions/perspective on this issue – nothing more, nothing less.

I will now try to respond to some of your comments
“The problem, IMO, is that a lot of commentary seems to reject and denounce the Russian realpolitik concerns (’they are flexing muscles’) while at the same time accepting the exact same concerns of the “West” (’Mikheil is a democratic leader’).”

I will agree that Russia has a certain bias built against it- not as bad as the US, but Western opinion is usually slanted against it. But in this incident, not a single European leader has openly condemned Russia’s actions – in fact they have basically agreed that the Georgian Prez was pretty rash in doing what he did. I agree with them too – he was basically stupid for doing what he did, no matter what the provocation was – if he was counting on US military support, he is an even bigger idiot.

But this is what conservatives in US are asking – why exactly does Russia want to treat Georgia as a client state, when Georgia itself is against it.? As far as the whole “client state” thing goes, these states can choose to be at the service of whomsoever they want to be – whether it is approved by competing interests or not.Pakistan was once the US client state – it wouldnt mind being China’s if it wants to – whether the US likes it or not.

And no one here is falling for the bullshit over South Ossetia – what are the Georgians supposed to do ? just keep getting hit by those who are being prodded by Russia? Their response was clearly rash, but they have now openly asked their supposed supporters – how far do you want Russia to go ahead ? where’s the proverbial line in the sand ?

“There is no mystery here. Russia considers its “near abroad” as its sphere of influence, and it has energy, trade and immigration issues with all such neighbours. NATO and US, for their own reasons (as “valid” as Russian reasons, from my point of view) want to puncture this sphere of influence. In more blunt terms, Russia wants Georgia to be its client state while NATO/US want Georgia to be their client state. Hence, the conflict (it escalated right now because of rather naive assumptions by Saakashvili).”

Well Russia may want a lot more – but you dont co-erce nations into being client states – atleast not when you are no longer the super power you once were. How ever rash Saakashvili was, Putin clearly over reached by bombing Tbilisi and Gori – it now has the leaders of Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, Poland come out openly in support for Georgia – as you point out Russia might consider them the “near abroad” or what ever you want to call it, but it looks like these countries might want to say some thing about it.

In fact neither Georgia nor Ukraine are members of NATO yet – simply because no major European country wants to anger Russia (because of its energy blackmail) – they are ready to concede that these former states should continue to be under Russian sphere of influence. It is only the US which has been pushing for their membership – and even the US could nt do much more than protest indignantly.

If Georgia were truly a client state for the US, there would be less talk from the US and more action. This need not be necessarily military. All that the US could do was to ship 2000 Georgian troops from Iraq back to Georgia – now is’nt that swell ?

I thought this was common knowledge, which is why I wrote what you seem to think is ‘boilerplate’. In my response, I’d pointed out quite clearly that the legitimacy of South Ossetian democratic aspirations is only as legitimate as those in Kosovo. I also stated that there is no lack of “excuses” for Russia to intervene militarily. If the meaning is not clear, I can’t help you with that.

If Russia was truly interested in the democratic aspirations of its people, i wonder why it dealt with Chechenya the way it did. Who is going to intervene for the Chechens the way noble Russians “intervened” for their friends in Ossetia ? Does Chechenya have legitimate aspirations in your view ?

You may think it is “common knowledge” that NATO/US want Georgia to be a vassal for them, when the facts on the ground plainly speak otherwise. NATO wants nothing to do with these nations – not at the cost of inviting Russian wrath. They have been sitting on the issue of admitting Georgia, precisely because they are uncomfortable with this issue. In fact French President Sarkozy has gone on a begging mission to Russia to stop the hostilities. And Russia is now basically going to get South Ossetia – there is going to be no peace keepers or any thing like that.

If any thing, these events only drive countries like Georgia, Ukraine closer to the US than before. Intimidating legitimate nation states into becoming client vassals does not work that easily any more, no matter how much geo politics Russia likes to play.

After these hostilities, Russia may end up with more territory – but it also ends up with even more resistance from the nation states it supposedly wants to pull into its zone of influence. Not to mention an open declaration of hostility with the US. If this is how “geopolitics” is played, it is not too good.

The Russians look more like street thugs than a great power. May be there was some thing good that came out of this invasion.

Sud

Why should America oppose it if Russia wants a mil base for its N-bombers and missiles in a soverign country like Cuba with mutual consent?

The answer should suggest why Russia doesn’t want outside powers making client states of countries in its sphere of influence. How much pain one such client state – Pakistan – has inflicted upon much larger India at the behest of its sponsors – mainly the west and PRC is another data point worthy of examination, IMO.

B.O.K.

@NS:

Say, Country A lies in such a position that countries B and C are competing to turn country A into their own client state (or, to “exert influence” on it). The wishes of Country A are going to be of least concern to countries B and C. They’d care only about their own interests and pursue their policies anyway.

I am not sure if Sud was responding to your comment, but the situation he described should answer many of your concerns.

You seem to be interested in classifying countries’ actions as “right” and “wrong” and figuring out who is a “thug”. Since those are not my interests, I think I’ll stop here.

Isn’t nice to see everyone is a realist! Here is guy trying to get his land back and he should be tried for war crimes! And comparing him to Milosevic – an ethnic cleanser who killed scores of Muslims and non-Serbs. Very nice. Pawn or no pawn, it’s up to Georgia and Georgians to decide what they want to do – it can ally with Mars if it wants. Irrespective of what west does or doesn’t, it’s amazing to see most siding with Russia trash another country. If the Chinese come to rescue their rebels in northeast by cutting off the chicken neck of weaker nation, it’s apparently obvious who the support would go to…too bad, there is too much moralism. Nice to see Gorbachev trying to redeem himself in front of his fellow Russians.

Anyway, here is Saakashvili’s side of the story – of repeated traps of Putin and final one when he was ready to roll. How dare Saakashvili tries to keep his country together and want to be part of Europe.

NS

“Say, Country A lies in such a position that countries B and C are competing to turn country A into their own client state (or, to “exert influence” on it). The wishes of Country A are going to be of least concern to countries B and C. They’d care only about their own interests and pursue their policies anyway.”

Sorry BOK, but these analogies make no sense – Georgia has no interest being a client state of Russia – and it is no client state of the US. It may be of the least concern for Russia what Georgia thinks, but that does not mean that Georgia needs to roll over and play dead when pro Russian forces in Ossetia keep launching attacks at it. This has been going on for a long time – this is not a war that Georgians suddenly woke up to,one fine day. I am surprised by the callousness with which you equate Russian and US interests on Georgia in the same way. I am not denying that these two countries have no interests but to equate them is just plain silly.

With your line of reasoning both India and Pakistan would have the same kind of interest in Afghanistan, when it clearly is nt.

“I am not sure if Sud was responding to your comment, but the situation he described should answer many of your concerns.”

I wish people put more thought into historical analogies like the Cuban Missile crisis – . Georgia is not exactly being armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons by the US – America has no interest in opening a new front against the Russians when they already have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Any one who thinks otherwise has no idea of the terrible costs that the US is enduring in its two war fronts already.

“You seem to be interested in classifying countries’ actions as “right” and “wrong” and figuring out who is a “thug”. Since those are not my interests, I think I’ll stop here.”

And you seem to have no understanding of what i am trying to say. When Russia acts like a thug, what else do you think is it going to be called ? Peace keeper ? In the last 3 days, it has managed to make all major powers in Europe to start thinking ” How propotionate was the Russian response ” – why are they attacking what is indisputable Georgian territory?

What exactly did Russia achieve here ? how were its interests exactly served ? If any thing it has only succeeded in uniting both Presidential candidates in the US to condemn its actions. And thats no small feat considering how McCain and Obama have been sniping at each other when it comes to foreign policy.

No European nation today supports Russias escalation in this conflict even if they agree that Georgia should not have started a war. And the Baltic states have come together in supporting Georgia as well.

Remind me again what Russia has achieved here leaving aside such silly things like “right” and “wrong”.?

NS

@Chandra,
The Russian Foreign minister came on Charlie Rose and said that Russia was trying to stop genocide in South Ossetia with a straight face. When Rose asked him, why exactly Gori and airports near the capital city were being attacked, he flat out refuted that these attacks even happened !

“. Pawn or no pawn, it’s up to Georgia and Georgians to decide what they want to do – it can ally with Mars if it wants. Irrespective of what west does or doesn’t, it’s amazing to see most siding with Russia trash another country. If the Chinese come to rescue their rebels in northeast by cutting off the chicken neck of weaker nation, it’s apparently obvious who the support would go to…too bad, there is too much moralism. Nice to see Gorbachev trying to redeem himself in front of his fellow Russians.”
Could nt have said it better myself.

B.O.K.

@NS:

1. When did I ever call upon Georgia to roll over and play dead? I attempted to answer your query about Russian interests in Georgia (a point which I’ve already clarified). You seem to have taken that answer as my support, “whole-hearted” or otherwise, for Russian policies. Let me assure you that it is nothing of the sort.

2. My analogy merely states that wishes of Country A are of no concern to countries B and C in pursuance of their respective perceived interests in Country A. It says nothing whatsoever about their interests being equal or otherwise. I did not make that judgment in any of my comments.

Hope that clears it up.

Also, I have absolutely no objection to you calling any country by any name (well, unless it is India). You can call Russia as many names as you want. I didn’t call Russian forces peace-keepers or angels anyway.

Moving on.

I am, however, interested in seeing what Russia and Georgia have achieved with this little war. It could make NATO reluctant to admit Georgia and Ukraine, and it could easily do the opposite. That would depend on NATO’s estimate of Russian resolve to keep these countries within its ambit.

A lot of people seem to be saying that this war has indicated Russia’s resolve to take things really far, and hence NATO/EU would hesitate before expanding in future. I am not so sure about that. I think that Russia did indeed want to send such a message, but I am not sure that it is definitely going to be read that way. It is quite clear that Russia was never going to pay a heavy price for this war, and that *may* have encouraged them to escalate the conflict. If NATO takes that view, then it might actually accelerate Ukraine’s admission and thus raise the stakes for another such Russian adventure. It is these calculations that would determine what Russia has or has not gained from this war.

OTOH, Georgia, seems to be the complete loser here. Lots of people dead. Militarily trounced. Blitzkrieg did not work. No real international support. And now, Russian troops are not going to leave in a hurry, thus making admission to NATO/EU a distant dream. Moreover, there is now a distinct possibility that Russia would increase its efforts to get recognition for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. While far from certain, such a result would be a huge blow to Georgia. No doubt, the new countries would waste no time in joining the Russian Federation (it is a federation, hence open to other countries actually joining in, rather than just being friendly).

Lets see how it goes.

Nitin

BOK,

Yes…it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the case of Ukraine. My own take is that Russia’s disproportionate response would cause NATO to step back. If the Russians had reacted with restraint, then I’d say NATO might have been emboldened. So the Russian strategy might have been deliberately designed to signal this.

In any case, I would say that NATO upping the ante by accelerating Ukraine’s admission would be pitch it into a too costly confrontation. The EU countries don’t have the stomach for it…even if parts of the US establishment were game.

NS

BOK,
I dont think I ever denied that Russia has interests in Georgia – i dont think any one does. From my perspective, this whole thread was about how the US does not see the irony of condemning Russia for acting in its interests while it tries to do the same. I think most commentators realize this – but they cannot deal with the brute force strategy of the Russians.

My take on this issue is this – the reaction in the US was strong because there was a point where Russia escalated beyond merely protecting what it saw was its interests – this escalation is kind of what took people by surprise and alarm – further more, moving troops, tanks, heavy artillery so rapidly is impossible unless of course these operations were planned well in advance. The Russians were most definitely ready for this. Russia has not been this aggressive in Europe (Afghanistan is another story) since the 60’s ( was it Hungary ??) – and this almost always invokes bad memories/anxious thoughts for the West.

Now the Russians might have escalated the conflict to give a warning sign to the US about its ties with Georgia, Ukraine etc – but it seems to have backfired temporarily. The deal may be in cold storage for now, but we have not heard the last of it – i dont see how the US would totally drop this issue – it would a loss of face. But its possible that when Obama becomes President ( McCain has almost no chance) he may actually listen to France and Germany and drop support for Georgia’s inclusion into NATO.

I would be very thankful if Nitin can post Chanakya’s views about the propotionate use of force by a country against a lesser enemy – especially when the lesser enemy has an ally like the US. May be this is already out there, so even if you can point to the link, i would appreciate it.

sud

Chandra’s seems to be about the only genuine, compassionate, humane, morally consistent and thoughtful post in this mess. His pouring vitriol on the naked hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the ‘armchair realists’ promises to ring in their ears for yrs to come. If it hasn’t shamed the rest of us yet, it should and I trust with time, patience and calm, it will.

Cough. cough.

His challenging these born-again realists to not support India if and when PRC intervenes militarily in support of yuan-financed insurgencies in India’s NE is a stinging slap to misplaced nationalism based on moral principle. What possible cogent reply can these part-time ad-hoc realists have now, eh? Wah, wah. Etc.

Going by his impeccable logic, how can India oppose if Bangladesh decides to enter into a comprehensive NATO style security pact with PRC and allows basing rights for warships, submarines, N-missiles and missile shields in BD? Isn’t BD a soverign country after all that does not wish to be India’s client state despite being in India’s neighbourhood and sharing some 3000+ km border with yindia?? Last I recall, Delhi quietly threatened a naval blocakde if submarine basing rights were to be given to PRC in the Bay of Bengal and both Beijing and Dhaka backed down for now, no doubt waiting out for a suitable time later.

What if Nepal decides to give missile basing rights to PRC or Papistan? Isn;t Nepal a soverign nation that doesn’t wish to be a client state of yindia? Am sure uncle Sam will respect Mexcian or Guatamalan soveriegnity and desire to not become some client state should PRC wish to base N-weapons there….

Shaabash, chandra saab. Pls continue to enlighten these small dark minds with your moral clarity, courage, consistency, rectitude, probity, intellect, humanity and insert any other radioactively glowing adjectives you can think of. Who needs realists, realism and realpolitik anyway? What has strategic thinking based on realpolitik given yindia in all its illustrious history spanning centuries now?

/If its too much to ask that you dispense more pearls of enlightenment before underappreciative peasentry, I understand. Thank you for your laudable and valiant efforts thus far.

This is the reincarnated website of a tiny little expat magazine, earlier published from Moscow, recently banned by Russia. That was rather weird, because the magazine was generally seen by its readers as having a pro-Russia bias (however slight)!

AFAIK, though often heavy on dark humour (which the reader would have to filter out, and Kremlin couldn’t), it is quite unbiased in its reporting. The “War Nerd” columns are especially enlightening. Check out their coverage of this conflict.

I am sure all you realists would argue to build a new Indian empire by running down bangla, nepal and all our neigbours to put a stop to PRC and whoever want to place missiles, basing rights, or what ever to surround India. So much for the Russian and desi realists.

Apparently I am too clear eyed to see the realism in Russian (and of course, your) thinking…